Czars are good! No, they’re bad! No, wait…

Just look at what is being done with these people, while serious top executive posts remain unfilled.

It's not so much that these are positions that elude review or scrutiny by the Congress.

It's even less that the term smacks of the totalitarianism we've seen the lib Dems flirting with currently.

It's more of ineptitude, clumsy elitism. Many of these people are figureheads, given that they are hardly doing anything at all that is being reported. (Even the liberal media will be sensationalistic and will report any scandal that cannot be kept hidden indefinitely.) It's as if the solution to meeting any needs or solving any problems is to add a top bureaucratic post, and add a new figurehead bureaucrat to the payroll. (Cronyism opportunity!) It's modern-day, sillier-liberal "symbolism" over substance.

It's as if we're supposed to be Relieved or Reassured that our wonderful Government (capitalized, of course) is Doing Something by appointing a Czar to address any given (real or not) Problem.

I've always thought that the czars were appointed to positions that oversaw areas that needed input from multiple cabinet agencies, thus trying to lessen or even eliminate some of the petty inter-agency squabbles and in-fighting that come from one agency making decisions that fall within another agency's purview. Kind of a stupid name for the appointee, but other than that, I see nothing wrong with it. And if it gets things going, when otherwise the departments would be stalled from doing their jobs because whomever is controlling Congress at the time is playing politics with the Cabinet nominations, then that's even better.

Are Conservative media elites running out of things be outraged about? Even Regan had czars. This is more ridiculousness.

This link to Poltico and WE shows many of the czars were confirmed or even holdovers from previous administrations:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781...
http://washingtonindependent.com/57977/when-is-...

Here’s the problem: Some of the people whom conservatives and mainstream media voices alike have labeled “czars” have been confirmed by the Senate. Some of them, and others, hold jobs that were created by previous presidents.

Take a look at Politico’s list of 31 “czars,” which shrinks to 30 without Van Jones. Republican strategists like Ed Rollins have used that “31″ number to allege that there’s a problem here. But perhaps the most controversial people labeled “czars” by Beck and by reporters have gone through Senate confirmations. Cass Sunstein, whom Politico labels the “regulatory czar,” is waiting for the end of a Republican filibuster so he can lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office created in 1980. John Holdren, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was confirmed by the Senate, unanimously, six months ago. But none of that seems to matter to their critics. Michelle Malkin, whom, again, Politico credited for making this an issue, relentlessly refers to Holdren as the “Science Czar” as if it was his actual title.

Let’s just go down the Politico list.

Pre-exisiting jobs:

“AIDS Czar” – Actually the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, created in 2001 by George W. Bush.

“Border Czar” – Actually the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs, created in 2003 by George W. Bush.

“California Water Czar” – Actually the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, who was given this extra portfolio by Secretary Ken Salazar in June.

“Central Region Czar” – The Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the “Central Region,” on the Nation Security Council.

“Drug Czar” – Actually the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, created in 1989 by George H.W. Bush.

“Faith-Based Czar” – Head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, created in 2001 by George W. Bush.
...

Another example of the Republican principles that what is good for them to do is bad for the Democrats to do. And the Republicans create fear of the Democratic czars to support the GOP agenda.

"Czars are good! No, they’re bad! No, they’re good! Who the hell knows?"

If we only knew who the first President was who appointed a Czar. I kid, I kid. Wasn't it President Regan with the "Drug Czar"? Which isn't even the official title. I will have to see if I can find who coined the term though and if *any* of the Czar's have it as their real titles.

Unfortunately, we see uglier things now (Van Jones, Carol Browner) than we have seen before.

It doesn't help when we're treated to PC silliness, including "greenhouse gas" regs for motor vehicles.


(Czars and others: Cars, industry are bad!)


http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/ghg...

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/...

"Within weeks [before or after resolution of self-made health care debacle?], the EPA is expected to issue an 'endangerment finding' that would trigger a requirement for the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (PL 101-549) -- even without new legislation."

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/balance_of_power/20...

Jazz
Our once thoughtful friend Ed died and was replaced by just another political hack the day he moved over to Malkin's house of crazy.

This is one of those times you earn your partisan stripes, no this is not different and Bush's were controversial to the left. The difference, the Dems lack Fox News and the entire radio dial as a 24/7 infomercial for their party and against the other party so their fears were ignored by the MSM which listens to those on the right after they have kicked and screamed enough. Instead they get MSNBC which is not only relatively new to the partisan game, they are also bad at it not to mention liberals do not like the "preach to the choir" effect that Repubs do if you look at the number of viewers. Much as has been said by others this is just another case of "ok for me but when you do it its an act of treason!!!"

Czars are the "signing statements" of the Obama administration, an effort to apply an expanded and unchecked growth f the power of the Executive Branch.

My criteria is that a Czar may be justified if all of the following are met (I reserve right to ammend this list as other thoughts materialize):

1) The appointment is made to a specific issue with a foreseeable end.
2) The person appointed in an expert in the area, where expertise is lacking and not a political reward to a crony
3) The issue is important and needs to be addressed immediately
4) Other existing positions do not adequately cover the issue
5) Security Clearance follows normal procedures, unless Congress approves a special process by a supermajority in both houses


Given that the current Czars that meet these criteria in my view are:

Guantanamo Closure Czar - Daniel Fried

Thats it. Most of the other offices fail on the 4th requirement. The Secreatary of Commerce, The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, The ambassador to Iran, The Attorney General, The Secretary of Transportation, The Director of the Office of Management & Budget, etc should be fulfilling the duties that these other Czars have been assigned.

GITMO stikes me as a unique situation, and of limited duration, nothing seems to really cover it, Daniel Fried has expertise and does not appear to be merely a crony, its an important issue and needs to be addressed promptly.

I'm not sure that these czars have any enforcement power. Aren't they basically just advisers of some sort. They mostly seem to be either cheerleaders for some new fangangled industry/initiative or a kind of conduit between some sector of non-government world and the government.

Confirmed heads of agencies actually command gigantic bureaucracies with real legal power.

So, do the czars have real enforcement power? Or are they just there for communication purposes?

Apparently they at least think they do

For example:

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE57G...

He also said he has the authority to use a "clawback" provision to go after compensation for executives from any company that received money from the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Progr.am (TARP).

"I have the discretion, conferred upon by Congress, to attempt to recover compensation that has already been paid to executives not only in these companies, but in any company that received federal assistance," Feinberg said during his remarks.

"This is one of those times you earn your partisan stripes"

No GOP skunk stripes. These ObamaCo folks are making news all by themselves.